[theme-reviewers] Need Clarification on theme name which is fine as per the guideline and as per the other theme names !

Wed Jul 23 00:33:33 UTC 2014

http://wordpressfoundation.org/contact/

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> We are done here, but I will make a last ditch attempt at wpfoundation, do
> you have an email address or should I use their contact form.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>
>> Are we done?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Daniel Fenn <danielx386 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Srikanth on the fact that having a theme called "Premium
>>> photography" would be gaining an unfair advantage over those who comes
>>> up with their own original name and who are creative with what they
>>> call their theme.
>>>
>>> And yes I'm worried that the theme repo will become a spam feast.
>>>
>>> Over at the phpBB camp, most of the authors comes up with an original
>>> name and there never been any issues with SEO as the authors self
>>> regulate themselves.
>>> .
>>> Regards,
>>> Daniel Fenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> > So, any Theme name that returns even one search result hit should be
>>> > disallowed?
>>> >
>>> > No, I don't find that to be practical, or reasonable.
>>> >
>>> > If I've offered nothing constructive, it's because - again - I am
>>> adamantly
>>> > opposed to the TRT being the Word Police.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Where is the subjectivity, ambiguity in should result in zero results.
>>> >> Looks to me you are closed to discussion, if so there is no point. You
>>> >> have offered nothing constructive.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Too much subjectivity. Too much ambiguity. How much is "too much" SEO
>>> >>> positioning? How many search result hits are too many?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sorry, this is unenforceable. We have better things to do with our
>>> time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If you look at
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=%22reptio+wordpress+theme%22
>>> >>>> you will see that there are no results and there are no results
>>> because
>>> >>>> there is no business segment/audience called "reptio". Anyone
>>> naming their
>>> >>>> theme reptio is doing so for uniqueness, branding.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If you look at
>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/#q=%22premium+photography+wordpress+theme%22
>>> there
>>> >>>> are a ton of themes because photography is a huge business segment.
>>> Anyone
>>> >>>> naming their theme "Premium photography" is doing so to gain an
>>> advantage
>>> >>>> over those results using wordpress.org domain authority and link
>>> juice
>>> >>>> provided by WordPress users.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If you want to frame a guideline it can be something like this:
>>> >>>> Theme names are required to be unique and free of any industry
>>> >>>> keywords/buzzwords and void of any SEO intent/advantage. SEO
>>> >>>> intent/advantage will be checked using a simple phrase match google
>>> search
>>> >>>> with wordpress theme appended to theme name and should result in
>>> zero
>>> >>>> results.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Sure there maybe some false positives but it should be acceptable.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net
>>> >
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Honestly? No, I can't look at those search results and find
>>> anything
>>> >>>>> explicit, objective, and fair by which to craft an enforceable
>>> Guideline.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> shutting up but one final question :
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> you can't see the difference between the following and form a
>>> >>>>>> guideline?
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/#q=%22premium+photography+wordpress+theme%22
>>> >>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/#q=%22reptio+wordpress+theme%22
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Chip Bennett <
>>> chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> "Judging the intent of Theme name" = 100% subjective. No
>>> guideline
>>> >>>>>>> can reasonably be crafted to be fair, objective, or enforceable.
>>> We have a
>>> >>>>>>> difficult enough time getting all reviewers to understand what
>>> "GPL
>>> >>>>>>> compatible" means. Do you really think we have a prayer of being
>>> successful
>>> >>>>>>> at making reviewers all experts in SEO?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> In what way does Theme name correlate to Theme quality? Making
>>> >>>>>>> developers jump through hoops to come up with Theme names isn't
>>> going to
>>> >>>>>>> make them magically improve their code or design quality.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> It isn't the role of the TRT to police for abuse of WPORG's
>>> domain
>>> >>>>>>> authority. Our role is to ensure that Themes hosted in the
>>> official Theme
>>> >>>>>>> directory are of the best-possible quality, providing the best
>>> possible
>>> >>>>>>> experience for end users. The TRT doesn't speak for the WP
>>> Foundation. Otto
>>> >>>>>>> does, and has spoken. Any obvious SEO/spam will be dealt with -
>>> harshly, I
>>> >>>>>>> daresay - by him.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Srikanth Koneru <
>>> tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Why should reviewers be conducting Google searches? And what are
>>> >>>>>>>> they supposed to do with the results?
>>> >>>>>>>> To judge the intent of theme name, ton of relevant results = SEO
>>> >>>>>>>> intent
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> what do those efforts provide in end-user benefits?
>>> >>>>>>>> To make theme authors create decent themes instead of
>>> >>>>>>>> half/quarter/zero decent ones and depend on SEO tricks.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> What I don't understand is why would WP foundation want their
>>> >>>>>>>> directory and domain authority abused like this?
>>> >>>>>>>> Please answer this and I will shut up.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Chip Bennett <
>>> chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Why should reviewers be conducting Google searches? And what
>>> are
>>> >>>>>>>>> they supposed to do with the results? And most importantly:
>>> what do those
>>> >>>>>>>>> efforts provide in end-user benefits?
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Srikanth Koneru <
>>> tskk79 at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Made up words have least potential to be an SEO keywords, but
>>> if
>>> >>>>>>>>>> you don't want to ban dictionaries, a simple google search
>>> with WordPress
>>> >>>>>>>>>> theme as an append to that theme name would reveal its intent.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> ex:
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be almost nill relevant results for "Oenology
>>> Wordpress
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Theme" before it was created by you.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be nill relevant results for "sharpet wordpress
>>> theme"
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be nill relevant results for "reptio wordpress
>>> theme"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "wine wordpress
>>> theme"
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "premium
>>> photography
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wordpress theme"
>>> >>>>>>>>>> There will be a ton of relevant results for "mobile first
>>> >>>>>>>>>> wordpress theme"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> And a simple search is so very easy to perform and easy to
>>> judge.
>>> >>>>>>>>>> that would be about 0.1% of workload for a reviewer. This is
>>> all assuming we
>>> >>>>>>>>>> don't want the directory to be :
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-responsive-photography
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/responsive-photography
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/responsive-small-business
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-mobile-first
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/one-page-mobile-first
>>> >>>>>>>>>> etc
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Chip Bennett
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We're talking in circles. I'm merely explaining the current
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Guideline. You're asking for a *new* Guideline.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Names like divi, avada, kyan, bron are fair/enforceable
>>> because
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> those made up names are not SEO keywords"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please try to think through that assertion to its logical
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> conclusions, including all intended and unintended
>>> consequences. "SEO
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Keyword" is not some fixed definition. It depends on
>>> context. Again, I'll
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> use my own Theme as the example: under your suggestion,
>>> "Oenology" would not
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> be a permissible Theme name, because it is a real word (i.e.
>>> not a made-up
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> word) that could be used for SEO purposes.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So do we throw out the entire English dictionary? And why
>>> just
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the English dictionary? What about Spanish? Or Latin? or
>>> Chinese? And if we
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> don't blanket-ban dictionary words: who gets to decide the
>>> context and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> intent of a term used in/as a Theme name, to determine if
>>> that use is for
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "SEO" purposes or not?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is that really where you think we should be going?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Srikanth Koneru
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with :
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = good
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ThemeShop" = bad
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = bad
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ThemeShop" = bad bad bad bad
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Names like divi, avada, kyan, bron are fair/enforceable
>>> because
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> those made up names are not SEO keywords.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All I can do is explain my point and if that is okay with
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> admins, then so be it.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Chip Bennett
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your changed example may be the "ground reality", but it
>>> is NOT
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to focus of the quoted Guideline. That's the point I'm
>>> trying to make. To be
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly clear, under the current Guideline:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keyword" = good
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme B name "SEO Keyword by a Bunch of Other SEO Keywords
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ThemeShop" = bad
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you want a enforceable, objective, definable and fair
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> naming standards, you should simply ask us to use made up
>>> names like divi,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> avada, kyan, bron"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes no sense, and is the exact opposite of
>>> enforceable,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> objective, definable, and fair.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Srikanth Koneru
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My changed example is the ground reality, If its not
>>> within
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the purview of TRT(not sure why it isn't) I was willing
>>> to make my case
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before WP foundation but Otto seems to speak for them so
>>> its not needed
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want a enforceable, objective, definable and fair
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> naming standards, you should simply ask us to use made up
>>> names like divi,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> avada, kyan, bron
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Chip Bennett
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked for clarification on the current Guideline. The
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example I gave explains the intent of that Guideline.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your changed example is something completely different,
>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not something I believe to be within the purview of the
>>> TRT.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take the name of my own Theme, for example: Oenology.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, my Theme has nothing to do with Wine, though I take
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artistic license with it in the Theme description and
>>> motivation. Are you
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting that my Theme name is acceptable as-is, but
>>> if I'd made a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wine-related Theme, then it would *not* be acceptable,
>>> merely because it is
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a relevant SEO keyword?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I just can't get behind that. It's not objective,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definable, enforceable, or fair.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Srikanth Koneru
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chip,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convert this :
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "Some Name"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme B name: "Some Name by Amazing SEO Keywords"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme A name: "SEO Keywords"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theme B name: "Some Name by Amazing SEO Keywords"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the former, why are you objecting to Theme B name?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has "SEO Keywords"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Emil Uzelac
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice look + Great support + Great rating = Success in
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directory and or any other place out there.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catchy name is worthless without this.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Srikanth Koneru
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I said theme should be at least half
>>> decent,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success depends on how many people are actually using
>>> it.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Otto
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Srikanth Koneru
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otto, which search are you talking about Google or
>>> theme
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directory?
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how it works :
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I make a theme, name it "Premium Photography" get it
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into directory, I get a url
>>> www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography and
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my credit link will be <a
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> href="
>>> http://www.wordpress.org/themes/premium-photography">Premium
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Photography Theme</a>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get downloads from directory which will get me
>>> link
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> juice, combining the link juice and wordpress.org
>>> domain authority I am
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already in the top 3-7 ranks on google, give it
>>> some time to get more
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloads and build links and I am in top 1-3 and I
>>> now have a steady
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monthly pay check with no effort.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you need is a half decent theme and a nice
>>> keyword,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now if I get lucky and it gets featured, I can buy
>>> a nice car or a house.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you think so, then go for it. Best of luck.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, being that I have the actual download and
>>> usage stats, let's just
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I have my doubts. :)
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Names don't matter that much. Your Google-fu is not
>>> as
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong as you believe it to be. WordPress.org is
>>> indeed a major player, but
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're not the only game in town, and the truth is
>>> that people look for
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themes based on screenshots and functionality. Names
>>> may get you a Google
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> search result, but they don't get a download or
>>> usage, and the fact of the
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter is that people aren't stupid.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Otto
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> >> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20140722/3a5fabf2/attachment-0001.html>